Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 149 "Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      3 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 149 Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Clause 149 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides specified deductions for co-operative societies in computing total income. It enumerates categories of allowed deductions (business profits for specified activities, certain small-amount business profits, inter-co-operative income, letting of godowns, limited interest/house property income) and conditions relating to voting rights for societies engaged in labour/fishing activities. The provision affects co-operative societies (primary and others); effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 149 sits in the chapter dealing with "Deductions in respect of certain incomes" in the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The clause is intended to grant specified tax deductions to co-operative societies on certain classes of income. The text provides coverage of the types of co-operative societies and activities that qualify, thresholds for small-value activities, and special treatment for income from investments in other co-operative societies. Clause 149(6) supplies three definitions: "consumers' co-operative society", "co-operative bank" and "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank". No further definitions (e.g., of "primary society" or "federal co-operative society") are provided in the clause. Any wider contextual definitions or commencement/notification details are Not stated in the document.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Clause 149(1) establishes that if the gross total income of an assessee that is a co-operative society includes income of the kinds listed in sub-section (2), the sums specified in sub-section (2) shall be allowed as deductions in computing total income "in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section."

        Clause 149(2) enumerates six categories of deductible sums:

        • Clause 149(2)(a): For co-operative societies engaged in specified activities (banking/providing credit to members; cottage industry; marketing of agricultural produce of members; purchase of agricultural implements/seeds/livestock for supply to members; processing without aid of power of members' agricultural produce; collective disposal of members' labour; fishing or allied activities), the whole of the profits and gains attributable to any one or more of such activities are deductible.
        • Clause 149(2)(b): For a primary society supplying milk, oilseeds, fruits or vegetables raised by its members to a federal co-operative society, Government/local authority, or specified Government companies/corporations, the whole of such business profits and gains are deductible.
        • Clause 149(2)(c): For co-operative societies engaged in activities not specified in (a) or (b), an amount of profits and gains attributable to such activities is deductible up to prescribed small thresholds-one lakh rupees for consumers' co-operative societies and fifty thousand rupees for others.
        • Clause 149(2)(d): Income by way of interest or dividends from investments with any other co-operative society is wholly deductible.
        • Clause 149(2)(e): Income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses used for storage, processing, or facilitating marketing of commodities is wholly deductible.
        • Clause 149(2)(f): For co-operative societies that are not housing societies, urban consumers' societies, transport societies, or societies performing manufacturing with aid of power, if gross total income does not exceed twenty thousand rupees, the amounts of income by way of interest on securities or any income from house property chargeable u/s 20 are deductible.

        Interpretation

        The clause adopts a categorical approach: specific activities enumerated in (2)(a) and (2)(b) receive full deduction of attributable business profits and gains. The drafting implies legislative intent to fiscally favour co-operative activities with social, agricultural or rural development character and primary cooperative supply chains. Clause 149(2)(c) recognises incidental or ancillary activities by permitting a capped deduction, signalling that only small-scale non-core business profits receive preferential tax treatment.

        Clause 149(4) provides that deductions under sub-section (1) relating to (2)(a), (b), (c) or sub-section (3) shall be allowed with reference to income after reducing the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the assessee is also entitled to that deduction - indicating an order of computation to avoid double advantage. The clause thereby contemplates interaction with pre-existing industrial/infrastructure related deductions (section 80-IA) and establishes netting off before applying cooperative deductions.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Clause 149(3) conditions application of the sub-section dealing with collective disposal of labour and fishing/allied activities on the society's rules restricting voting rights to specified classes: (i) individuals who contribute labour or carry on fishing/allied activities; (ii) co-operative credit societies which provide financial assistance; (iii) the State Government. This is a membership/control test to ensure genuine member-based governance.

        Clause 149(2)(f) carves out several categories of societies (housing, urban consumers' societies, transport, manufacturing with power) from the small gross-income relief. The relief under (f) only applies if gross total income does not exceed twenty thousand rupees.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: A primary milk co-operative supplying milk to a federal co-operative society has business profits of Rs. 500,000 attributable to that activity - under Clause 149(2)(b), the whole amount would be deductible when computing total income.
        • Example 2: A consumers' co-operative retail society derives Rs. 120,000 profit from an ancillary non-specified activity - under Clause 149(2)(c)(i), only Rs. 100,000 is deductible; the remaining Rs. 20,000 is taxable.
        • Example 3: A fishing co-operative's rules permit voting by outside investors - if voting is not restricted to classes listed in Clause 149(3), the special deduction for fishing activities under (2)(a)(vii) would not apply. (Whether this exact circumstance occurs is a fact; the clause makes the control condition explicit.)

        Interplay

        Clause 149 explicitly interacts with section 80-IA (Income-tax Act, 1961) by requiring deduction under 80-IA to be reduced first where applicable. Clause 149(6)(b) ties definitions of "co-operative bank" and "primary agricultural credit society" to Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Other cross-references (e.g., section 20 for house property) are internal to the tax code. No other Rules, Notifications or Circulars are referenced in the clause. Any further interaction with other deductions or eligibility conditions outside the clause is Not stated in the document.

        Differences between Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 149 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

        • Cross-references to other deductions: Clause 149(4) (Bill) expressly refers to reduction of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas Section 149(4) (Act) refers generically to "section 138".
          • Practical impact: The enacted provision substitutes a different cross-reference (section 138) which likely reflects renumbering/restructuring in the revised Act; taxpayers and practitioners must verify which contemporary provision (section 138) corresponds to former section 80-IA relief before applying the interaction rule.
        • Wording on application condition for certain societies: Clause 149(3) states "provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply when the rules and bye-laws... restrict the voting rights to the following classes of members," while Section 149(3) in the Act states the deduction in sub-section (1) applies only when the rules restrict voting rights to specified classes.
          • Practical impact: The Bill framed the condition as application of sub-section (2); the Act frames it as a condition for deduction under sub-section (1). Substance appears the same, but the enacted text is marginally clearer that the deduction itself is conditional - minimal practical effect except for drafting clarity in litigation or interpretation where reliance on the exact statutory linkage could arise.
        • Definitions: Clause 149(6) in the Bill contains express definitions for "consumers' co-operative society", "co-operative bank" and "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank". Section 149 in the Act (Document 1) does not include clause (6) or these definitions.
          • Practical impact: The Bill's inclusion of definitions would assist interpretation; their absence in the enacted section may require cross-reference to other statutes (e.g., Banking Regulation Act) or general interpretation principles. This increases potential ambiguity for terms used in the enacted section.
        • Subsection numbering and internal references: Clause 149(3) refers to "provisions of sub-section (2)"; the Act's corresponding subsection reference is to sub-section (1) in one place, and the Act elsewhere has slightly different cross-references (e.g., section 20 in Act corresponds to "section 20" in Bill).
          • Practical impact: Potentially material if internal references were misaligned; practitioners must confirm which sub-section each condition attaches to when applying the enacted text.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance/risk areas: Co-operative societies must allocate and document profits attributable to qualifying activities (particularly where societies undertake both specified and non-specified activities) to substantiate claims under (2)(a)/(b)/(c). For fishing/labour co-operatives, bye-laws restricting voting are a precondition - compliance requires careful governance documentation and possible amendment of bye-laws where necessary.
        • Interaction with other deductions: Entities claiming both section 80-IA and Clause 149 relief must compute netting as provided; failure to reduce the 80-IA deduction first may invite adjustment. Practitioners should keep explicit working papers showing order of deductions.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: Maintain minutes, registered bye-laws, membership rolls and voting rights records to demonstrate eligibility under Clause 149(3); maintain segmented accounting to show profits attributable to each activity and inter-cooperative investments for (2)(d); keep leases and purpose documentation for godown letting under (2)(e).

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 149 provides targeted, often full, deduction of profits for co-operative societies engaged in specified agricultural, credit, cottage, marketing, processing (without power), labour-collective and fishing activities.
        • Primary societies supplying agricultural produce to federal co-operatives, government bodies or specified public companies receive full deduction for that business.
        • Non-specified activities qualify only up to modest monetary caps (Rs. 1,00,000 for consumers' co-operatives; Rs. 50,000 for others).
        • Income from investments in other co-operative societies and income from letting godowns used for marketing are fully deductible.
        • Special control/governance conditions apply for labour and fishing co-operatives; bye-laws restricting voting to specified classes are a precondition.
        • Deductions under Clause 149 must be computed after reducing deduction u/s 80-IA where applicable.
        • Definitions for key terms are included in Clause 149(6), aiding interpretation, but other definitional gaps remain and are Not stated in the document.

         


        Full Text:

        Section 149 Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax